My question is actually about the botched rescue plan. Were there any survivors from the crash and if so did they make it out or did they themselves become hostages? (sorry if this was already answered in class. I was out sick.)

Reply

Alexus Seymour

4/8/2014 07:41:25 am

There were no survivors of the two helicopters that crash

Reply

Alura Polese

4/8/2014 11:22:16 am

There were no survivors sadly, 8 people died during that crash. Their plane was burnt down into shreds. No hostages were saved :(

But no we didn't talk about this in class but it was specified that there were no survivors.

Reply

Alexus Seymour

4/8/2014 07:43:29 am

When Tehran took U.S. staff hostages, where did they keep them held?

Reply

Rachel Maristela

4/8/2014 08:24:24 am

I think the hostages were held in prisons. That is what I researched online.

Reply

Cole Sargent

4/8/2014 12:38:23 pm

Tehran was the city where the United States embassy was located, and, until America tried out the botched "Operation Eagle Claw" all of the hostages were held captive in buildings inside the embassy. After that, they got shipped off to a bunch of prisons all across Tehran so the Americans wouldn't succeed in a rescue operation. It was pretty gruesome.

Reply

Christopher Bargman

4/8/2014 07:51:39 am

Was the United States taking in the former Shah the only thing that sparked this mass kidnapping at the Embacies? Why didn't the U.S. comply to their demands if getting the hostages back was their main priority?

Reply

Adrian Schnepp

4/8/2014 02:58:58 pm

The Shah fleeing to the U.S. because of his illness sort of did 2 things in Iran, it left a power vaccum in the country and further demonized the U.S. in the eyes of the Iranian people. It wasn't the only thing that caused the revolution, the Shah had been hugely unpopular in Iran mainly because he was, in effect, the U.S's puppet to keep oil prices down, they had been supporting his dictatorship for years for economic benefit, but his fleeing the country and the U.S taking him in was the spark for open hostility to occur.

And the U.S usually does its level best not to negotiate with terrorists. The United States would've looked ridiculous in the eyes of the international community if it gave in to the demands of a bunch of third-world college students. Remeber, the Cold War hadn't ended by this time, so American was still trying to show off its superiority to the Russkies. In addition to that, it would've sent a rather chilling message to the American supported dictators in the rest of the world if they threw their former allies to the dogs as soon as they stopped being useful.

Reply

Trevin Kraus

4/8/2014 07:56:51 am

What governmental laws/regulations have been implemented to help keep economic issues that occurred in the 1970's at bay? Were there any further repercussions of these laws/regulations? If so what did the government do to resolve those?

Reply

Rachel Maristela

4/8/2014 08:08:03 am

Why were Iranian university students the ones who started the riots?

Reply

Sophia Kormanik

4/8/2014 09:35:18 am

In July a student dormitory was raided by riot police that night during which a student was killed. The raid sparked six days of demonstrations and rioting throughout the country, during which at least three other people were killed and more than 200 injured.

Reply

Sabrina

4/8/2014 08:09:32 am

What led the United States to cultivate a strong relationship with Shah? Were there any benefits to the relationship for the United States? For Iran?

Reply

Abby Thompson

4/8/2014 09:35:58 am

I'm pretty sure the US was in cahoots with Iran/Shah because they wanted their resources, and Iran/Shah was with the US because the US was so big and powerful and it could benefit both Iran and the Shah.

Reply

Lance Shuler

4/8/2014 01:49:24 pm

Shah was able to maintain a close relationship to america and regarded as a friend. I guess this is important because of poor relations between the U.S. and Iran

Nico

4/8/2014 08:11:55 am

Who are the leaders of the Islamic Revolution?

Reply

Rachel Deaton

4/8/2014 10:30:07 am

The main leader was Ayatollah Khomeni. He was the people's spiritual leader as well.

Reply

Hank Sherr

4/8/2014 04:20:14 pm

The main leader were cleric Ayatollah Khomeni, which who was preaching against the shah.

Reply

Carly

4/8/2014 09:22:40 am

Why did the rioters believe that the US was a "Great Satan?"

Reply

Alex Demos

4/8/2014 10:36:46 am

The rioters believed the US was the "Great Satan" because they brought in the former Shah of Iran for cancer treatment after his overthrow.

Reply

Karen Barragan

4/8/2014 12:50:10 pm

They beleived it was the "Great Satan," because it was a term used by an Iranian leader throughout 1979. This leader accused the United States of imperialism, as well as corruption. The word devil in Islam is used to refer to not only the United States but other countries as well.

Reply

Sophia C.

4/9/2014 05:50:46 am

One reason was that the U.S backed the Shah who was a terrible leader and was horrible to the people of Iran.

Reply

Sophia Kormanik

4/8/2014 09:31:23 am

My question is that when the U.S. rescued only 13 people what happened to the remaining people?

Reply

Meranda Knowles

4/8/2014 09:36:25 am

It says that "the remaining 52 were to be deprived of their freedom for 444 painful days." So they were eventually released

Reply

Jessica Pollock

4/8/2014 05:46:59 pm

The remaining 52 people were kept for 444 more days after the release of the 13. They were kept as hostages in prison and it says they were "painful days".

Reply

Abby Thompson

4/8/2014 09:33:08 am

Why was the Shah hated so much? What occurred to make all the rioting happen?

Reply

Sarah H.

4/8/2014 11:05:44 am

One of the reasons the Shah was hated by the Iranian people was because he did not allow any political opposition and ordered torture on individuals who did not agree with his policies.

Reply

Meranda Knowles

4/8/2014 09:40:48 am

I was wondering what exactly the Shah did to cause so many people to dislike him? Why did the U.S. seem to like him when his own country did not?

Reply

Meilani

4/8/2014 10:33:35 am

From 1953 - 1963 there was a lot of poverty between the Iranian people and the gap between the rich and poor grew. The Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, held much of this wealth. He strengthened ties with the US while making agreements to share oil with them, which annoyed many people, and was considered an ultra-secularism. His secret police was brutal and he had tried to modernize Iran. Overall, he did a lot of things that the people didn't want or like.
The US liked him because they thought saw him as a stabilizing force in the Middle East. He also provided oil to the US, which is a valuable resource.

Reply

Rachel Deaton

4/8/2014 10:28:12 am

Do you guys think that it was a coincidence that the hostages were rescued when Ronald Reagan was president? It sounds like he held off because he wanted a more successful campaign...

Reply

Carly

4/8/2014 11:39:04 am

As the article said, this is a subject that has been up for a lot of debate, and is still unresolved. While it does seem to be quite convenient timing, I would say that I would like to see more information surrounding the release, and the justification for why it happened when it did before siding one way or the other.

Reply

Ysabella Dawson

4/8/2014 11:40:35 am

I researched it, and the hostages were released after the election decision had been made, the night before Reagan was brought into office Carter was working very hard to make sure the hostages were released, and the Iranian government chose to release them in the morning of Reagan's presidency.

Reply

Meilani

4/8/2014 10:36:34 am

Who created and formed the Resistance? How did they survive against the Shah?

Reply

crystal delgado

4/8/2014 03:24:38 pm

Like many uprisings ,it was a group effort that began underground. It wasnt announced or publicly displayed at first in order to keep the movement in tact and then when they felt they had enough following, they announced themselves.

Reply

Alex Demos

4/8/2014 10:42:19 am

Why were the remaining 52 hostages released when they were? What kept them from being released sooner?

Reply

Malia M.

4/8/2014 11:13:46 am

Khomeini's government decided it was time to end the matter. The hostages had were servicing the purpose of being negotiating tools but the U.S. were not agreeing to the release terms. The hostage situation did spread anti-American and anti-Shah propaganda which was beneficial to the Iranian government. However, ongoing sanctions were making it harder to straighten out an already chaotic economy in Iran. Negotiations had been dragging on for months and there wasn't much more incentive to keep the hostages.

Reply

Malia M.

4/8/2014 11:02:47 am

How long was Ayatollah Khomeini in power and who is in power now in Iran?

Reply

Patricia

4/8/2014 11:20:30 am

He was in power from February 11, 1979 - June 3, 1989.
I think the most power now has the supreme leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei.

Reply

Salina Brice

4/8/2014 11:25:03 am

He came into power in 1979 until 1989 when he died. And I believe the current President of Iran is Hassan Rouhani, who assumed office in August of 2013. Before him was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who served in office from 2005 to 2013.

Reply

Sarah H.

4/8/2014 11:07:14 am

How on earth did those responsible for the hostage crisis think they could pass it off as a peaceful protest? There was nothing peaceful about it!

Reply

Max Klein

4/8/2014 02:08:45 pm

Because technically they did not intentionally hurt the American Hostages. They pretty much just scared them.

Reply

Max Klein

4/8/2014 02:11:42 pm

At least not fatally

Katie

4/9/2014 06:30:09 am

Because there was no intentional harm done to the prisoners it was still considered a non violent protest which translated to peaceful depending on who was interpreting the situation.

Reply

Salina Brice

4/8/2014 11:11:06 am

Are the people in Iran happy with the type of power they now have? Has it changed at all from Ayatollah Khomeini ways?

Reply

Alura Polese

4/8/2014 11:23:54 am

Not knowing the next shah was going to be a republic, what government do they hold today? and how is it ran?

Reply

Anthony W.

4/8/2014 11:29:40 am

Currently, Iran is run under what's called Syncretic politics. That means that they don't operate under the "left-right" view of things. They set their differences aside and create a neutrality in between the two different sides of the political spectrum.

Reply

Anthony W.

4/8/2014 11:24:10 am

If the demonstrations and the like were peaceful, why did the police and military forces take physical and violent action against the protesters? Did they just not think of the consequences? As a matter of fact, in any situation like this, why do people act in a violent manner if it's been proven time and time again that it would end badly?

Reply

rebecca g

4/10/2014 01:23:43 pm

In my opinion, The biggest reason that this happens is because the government gets scared. Time and time again it happens, A peaceful group grows to a certain size, with ideas that are not in the favor of the people in power, And the people in power get scared. They then typically try to get the peaceful group to do something that they can say was an attack and use that to their advantage. They do this to get support from people who don't have side yet, though it typically ends up backfiring.

Reply

Patricia

4/8/2014 11:24:50 am

What role played the women? Were they involved in any of this or did no one really cared about them?

On the 17th, Khomeini announced that female, African American, and non-U.S. citizen hostages would be released, because women and minorities already suffered "the oppression of American society." Fifty-three Americans (including two women, Elizabeth Ann Swift and Kathryn Koob, and one African American, Charles Jones) remained as hostages.

Reply

Lance Shuler

4/8/2014 11:26:40 am

Why were so many people against Shah? What did he do? Why were people willing to go so far as to burn pictures of him?

Reply

Gage Gamboa

4/8/2014 12:01:37 pm

The burning of pictures of the Shah was just one piece of demonstrations in opposition to the Shah that began in October 1977. The opposition to the Shah was based in the widespread public disapproval of the Shah. This disapproval was rooted in backlash to the Westernizing and secularizing efforts of the Shah (among other things).

Reply

Ysabella Dawson

4/8/2014 11:28:35 am

I had a question about a few of the photos we viewed in class. In several of them they showed things like the "SAVAK agents being arrested" and such, and I was wondering what the SAVAK was.

Reply

Quentin Jackson

4/8/2014 12:27:45 pm

The SAVAK was the secret service of Iran during the Shahs rule. It was established in 1957 and fell along with the Shah in 1979. They tortured those who were against the Shah. The SAVAK was formed with the help of the United States CIA. The United States lent their support to ensure that Iran would provide oil to america, as the Pahlavi Dynasty was in good terms with them.

Reply

Hannah

4/8/2014 12:37:31 pm

Okay so I did a spot of research on the SAVAK, and found out that it was a secret police force underneath the Shah. They were known for their extreme brutality, and were trained by the Israeli Secret Service, (Mossad), and something that suprised me was that the formation of the SAVAK was 'guided' by the CIA.

Reply

Gage Gamboa

4/8/2014 11:46:47 am

Have there been any more hostile incidents at the US Embassy in Tehran since the hostage crisis?

Reply

Erik Salazar

4/8/2014 12:44:14 pm

No, immediately after the hostage situation the embassy served as housing for Iranian fighters and since then their have been no more formal embassies in Iran.

Reply

Tyler Felix

4/8/2014 12:24:22 pm

What type of conditions did the hostages have to suffer in? Also, how were the hostages awarded?

Reply

Trevin Kraus

4/8/2014 12:34:40 pm

Hostages described being beaten, blindfolded, bound hands for days and weeks on end. Hostage were constantly threatened with execution. Hostage takers often time played Russian Roulette with the victims.

Reply

Lisa Valtierra

4/8/2014 01:01:40 pm

The hostages also were flown to New York City were they were given a ticker tape parade through the Canyon of Heroes in New York City. For those in the US military, they were awarded with medals. The US gifted the hostages with lifetime passes to any major league baseball game. Although some families tried to sue Iran under the Anti-terrorism Act, but failed.

Reply

Cole Sargent

4/8/2014 12:34:29 pm

How could we sympathize with a political leader as corrupt as Pahlavi? I mean, he imprisoned thousands of people just because they spoke out against him. He was right for ruling with secularism, but in the end he was just another greedy, corrupt king--at least he was the last one.

Reply

Justin Walker

4/8/2014 01:48:51 pm

The primary reason for the US supporting and sympathizing with Pahlavi was the low-cost oil imports to the United States. While yes, we can sympathize with him in his fear of the people given his laundry list of crimes, the outrage of the Iranian people seemed incredibly justified.

Reply

Karen Barragan

4/8/2014 12:35:49 pm

Why do you think the US had agreed to give hostage takers immunity?

Reply

Jessica Boensch

4/8/2014 02:01:50 pm

In any kind of hostage crisis, getting said hostages back is on the top of the government's priority list. Because of this, they had very little leeway as to how they were able to negotiate with these terrorists. This, in my opinion, may have been one of the reasons the governments chose to give the men immunity- they had to do the best they could with the cards they were dealt.

Reply

Quentin Jackson

4/8/2014 12:40:36 pm

Why did the Iranians take hostages for that long? In addition, they stated that they took the hostages as a peaceful protest, but were they tortured or deprived of food during this period?

Reply

Brianna Barboza

4/8/2014 01:03:16 pm

It was a hypocritical statement. The hostage takers had no intention of "peacefully" bringing along the hostages. This was all just a game to them and in the end, the hostage takers were still given immunity despite their grotesque actions.

Reply

Hannah O'Connell

4/8/2014 12:41:45 pm

Economic Question: Why did the inflation and unemployment numbers rise every time there was an action made to prevent the numbers from rising?

Reply

Ryan Novak

4/8/2014 04:24:01 pm

In the reading the examples provided were all unsuccessful attempts at lowering unemployement or inflation. So none of them really worked in the real world for various reasons, but that doesn't mean that it is immpossible to lower inflation and unemployment. Often times what looks good in theory really doesn't play out anywhere near how it should have. That is why economics is coined the "dismal science".

Reply

Brianna Barboza

4/8/2014 12:49:41 pm

I was not entirely clarified on this. I would like to know the reason the US turned against the Shah if they had such a large amount of support for him. He was providing us with various resources after all.

Reply

Erik Salazar

4/8/2014 12:52:21 pm

Was a violent revolution necessary to bring the Shah out of power?

Reply

Jordan Garcia

4/8/2014 02:04:39 pm

There possibly could have been another way to get at the shaw but it had to be the first reaction out of the public to react in a negative/violent way. Their plan was an overthrow attempt and those events are usually led with aggressive actions.

The hostages were held for negotiation when the Shah was still in power, and the US was supporting him. After the death of the Shah, however, there wasn't much more to be gained in keeping them. In addition to their lack of need of the hostages, two of their demands had already been met; the Shah was dead, and his wealth that was being held in American banks was released. On November 2 1980, conditions for the hostages release were offered by the Iranian Parliament.

Reply

Ryan Martinez

4/8/2014 12:59:03 pm

Do you think there is any connection to Reagan being put into office the same day as the hostages were rescued?

Reply

Trey Lewis

4/8/2014 02:36:32 pm

Some beileve that the Reagan Party didn't let the hostages go until Reagan won. If they were let out any sooner the oppennet would have won over Reagan. Reagan also wanted something to start off well with. All this leds to the theory of Reagan waiting until the right time to let the prisoners go.

Reply

Lisa Valtierra

4/8/2014 01:09:15 pm

Why was it an advantage to have US hostages?

Reply

Vivian Mason

4/8/2014 01:45:16 pm

I believe it was an advantage to the US hostages because it protected them from possibly harsher rebels that would have killed them. By being on public display and used as trading material they had to be healthy, well fed and most of all alive. Since they were stuck in Iran at least they were relatively safe. This is why it was an advantage to the US hostages to be hostages.

Reply

Jordan Garcia

4/8/2014 01:19:44 pm

Why is the title " Demonstrators " used for the protesters? What does that mean exactly?

Reply

Scott B

4/8/2014 02:12:34 pm

The protesters were called "demonstrators" because of the literal definition of the word "demonstrator" : "A person or persons who takes part in a public protest meeting or march."

Reply

Vivian Mason

4/8/2014 01:46:45 pm

The article/photo captions stated that the men and women who stormed the embassy where "students". What do they mean by "students"? High school? College? Why "students"?

Reply

Xochitl Aguinaga

4/8/2014 02:42:31 pm

Yes they were Tehran university students, I don't know why they just addressed them only as students... maybe it was under the assumption that the reader already knew that.

Reply

Justin Walker

4/8/2014 02:01:11 pm

Why did the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970 prevent foreign countries from exchanging their paper money to gold? What exactly did this accomplish?

Reply

Halee Robinson

4/8/2014 02:02:34 pm

I was wondering what and how much information must have been excluded from media for some people to believe that this was a peaceful revolution.

Reply

Jessica Boensch

4/8/2014 02:05:28 pm

What caused Nixon to freeze wages and prices in the first place?

Reply

Grady Gumner

4/8/2014 03:44:56 pm

One way to combat inflation is by keeping wages from increasing. In theory, when people have lower wages the value of the dollar with remain relatively the same. President Nixon froze wages to try to slow down the rate of inflation, however it proved to be not very effective (as noted by the inflation rates by year seen in class).

Reply

Scott B

4/8/2014 02:14:09 pm

What were the political stances between the US and Iran before the hostage situation/events leading to the situation?

Reply

Preston Royal

4/8/2014 02:41:51 pm

The U.S. was in full support of the Shah for many decades prior. Until the Iran hostage crisis, we were on fairly even terms. The friendly relations between the United States and Iran lasted until the 1950s, thats when things got spicy.

Reply

Xochitl Aguinaga

4/8/2014 02:16:50 pm

Why were university students at the center of the revolution, was there something specifically they opposed about the government or were they just the most active revolutionaries?

Reply

Max Klein

4/8/2014 02:17:40 pm

Im still confused on what incentive we had to take in Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in the first place. Can someone helppppppppppppp?

Reply

Grady Gumner

4/8/2014 03:40:51 pm

Before Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, took power, the Prime Minister of Iran was Mohammed Mossadeq. Once in power, Mossadeq nationalized the Iranian oil fields. Once operated by the British, a US ally, the limitless wealth of Iran's oil was closed off to foreign interests. After some time of nationalized markets, the CIA and British forces ousted Mossadeq. The US subsequently helped build up the Shah Regime by giving them millions of dollars in aid. The Shah, in return, opened up Iran's oil fields and allowed the US and its allies to continue their operations in the country. This is the primary reason why the United States supported the Shah and his family even during the hostage crisis.

Reply

Chris Dnag

4/8/2014 03:47:43 pm

From my understanding, the shah was an ally of ours; we even put him in power. It would be natural if we wanted to try and keep him in power. Also, oil revenues played a major role in this decision too.

Reply

Trey Lewis

4/8/2014 02:38:12 pm

How did such an event get so voilent so quickly?

Reply

Hayes Sherr

4/8/2014 03:14:59 pm

Because protesters did not like the Shah and they created a violent scene by not agreeing with what was being said and done.

Reply

Preston Royal

4/8/2014 02:46:15 pm

How did the Iranian Hostage Crisis affect the way Americans treated Iranians living in the US, even though they could be U.S. citizens?

Reply

Ryan Martinez

4/9/2014 10:56:10 am

The majority of America treated practically everyone from the Middle East with such hate. As this hatred was dying down, 9/11 occurred which refueled that old flame of hate into an even bright flame.

Reply

Hayes Sherr

4/8/2014 02:47:26 pm

Were the protestors protesting against what President Carter was saying during his speech?

Reply

Tess Herzog

4/8/2014 03:06:13 pm

Why did the US give cancer treatment to the Shah?

Reply

Julz Valencia

4/8/2014 03:07:24 pm

The U.S. provided cancer treatment for the Shah because they supported him.

Reply

Julz Valencia

4/8/2014 03:08:45 pm

How many people lost their life trying to free hostages?

Reply

Tess Herzog

4/8/2014 03:10:07 pm

Two helicopters were damaged in a sand storm, and another crashed. Eight people died.

Reply

Adrian Schnepp

4/8/2014 03:12:25 pm

Why was President Carter so intent on finding a diplomatic solution rather than responding with military force? (aside from the botched operation, as in, a real a threatening military presence against Iran).

Reply

Shannon Carlson

4/8/2014 03:16:34 pm

How were the hostages treated? What kind of impact did it make on their lives after they returned?

Reply

crystal delgado

4/8/2014 03:26:33 pm

When the uprising began, why was violence used as the answer from either side? Was there no way to go about in the non violent protest ways on this instead of all parties reponding with brutal war?

Reply

Hank Sherr

4/8/2014 03:33:57 pm

Why were there hostages, but then why were they released?

Reply

Andrew Ledezma

4/8/2014 03:52:19 pm

According to the BBC News article " After months of negotiations, helped by Algerian intermediaries and the Shah's death, US diplomacy bore fruit.". This quote is referring to how the hostages were finally freed. Also according to the BBC News article, the hostages were taken by Tehran University students who stormed the U.S embassy because they believed that the American Government was corrupt and evil. "Thousands of other protesters pressed around the compound, responding to a call by the country's new leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, to attack US and Israeli interests." These were also crucial factors for the storming of the U.S embassy and the taking of American hostages.

Reply

Chris Dang

4/8/2014 03:37:33 pm

What group of people (farmers,soldiers,college students,poor,rich, etc.) was the main driving force behind the revolution and why?

Reply

John L.

4/8/2014 03:57:54 pm

There can be a few arguments made behind who was the main driving force behind the revolution but the ones seen in the two separate battle grounds of this revolution were the college students and average Joe's of america and the poor and mistreated people of Iran.

Reply

Grady Gumner

4/8/2014 03:47:43 pm

Do a majority of Iranians today still view the Western world in a resentful way? Or have Iranians become more accepting to the more progressive ideals of the West?

Reply

John L.

4/8/2014 03:51:19 pm

What do you think would have happened if there was a bit more fore knowledge about both sides qualities of good and bad?

Reply

Andrew Ledezma

4/8/2014 03:56:03 pm

Does the Iranian hostage crisis affect American foreign policy today?

Reply

Ryan Novak

4/8/2014 04:24:48 pm

Why did Iraninan students specifically start the riot? Why not buisnessman or radical muslims?

Reply

Paris Gramann

4/8/2014 10:58:33 pm

It seems that most older generations agree with what they grew up with. All that the Shaw and what he believed in conveyed, the older generations were most likely for it as well. As we can see through many of the uprisings and protests in history, it is the young people that have new knowledge of the world (college kids would be understandable), and who are looking for new ways to change things for the better. Also, like we saw in the Civil Rights unit, the children and young adults had practically nothing to lose -- vs. the businessmen who could lose their jobs or families.

Reply

Hank Sherr

4/8/2014 04:38:03 pm

Some of the hostages were taken to cameras and television blind folded. The remaining 52 hostages were released to Wiesbaden Air Base in Germany.

Reply

Hank Sherr

4/8/2014 04:39:13 pm

This was for Shannon's question...

Reply

Chelsea

4/8/2014 05:30:15 pm

How were the remaining 52 hostages treated throughout the 444 days?

Reply

John E.

4/8/2014 06:04:47 pm

It seems like that the 52 hostages during the 444 days were treated different from each other. I say this because during Christmas 1980 Barry Rosen was allowed to send a message to his family. This shows that they were treated different from each other because not everyone got to do what he did.

Reply

Jessica Pollock

4/8/2014 05:44:54 pm

Why was the US so involved with the Shah? Why would they risk the lives of their own people to save one man?

Reply

Parmida Z.

4/8/2014 08:52:36 pm

It was mainly due to economic reasons, he was supported both economically and politically by the U.S. The Shah was involved and believed in western policies.

Reply

John E.

4/8/2014 05:55:23 pm

During the Iran hostage crisis did any of the hostages get special treatment and get released early?

Reply

Chelsea

4/9/2014 02:25:18 am

13 females, and others hostages were released early due to Ayatollah Khomeini request. Richard Queen, was released on July 1980 after falling ill with multiple sclerosis.

Reply

Parmida Z.

4/8/2014 08:43:49 pm

If the Persians were able to protest against the Shah and have him executed if returned, why couldn't they protest strongly enough against the Islamic Society to remove it?

Reply

Paris Gramann

4/8/2014 10:51:12 pm

On the page that shows inflation rate v. unemployment rate, how do we compare the two? (What patterns are visible?) -- I didn't see any clear ones.

Reply

Sabrina

4/9/2014 12:45:28 am

I did a little research because I didn't see any relation either, and there is such thing as a Phillips Curve which states that lower unemployment leads to higher inflation. From the sheet we saw that this is not always the case, and the Phillips Curve since the 1960's has been used less and less because it is not often fitting. Simply I think that there is no set formula for inflation vs. unemployment, rather one has to take in multiple variables.

Reply

Karye Ingle

4/9/2014 01:54:40 am

I was wondering about how the whole hostage situation happened and how they got realeased

Reply

Sophia C.

4/9/2014 05:48:50 am

I know there were many factors leading into the reason why the revolution happened, but was there one event which really served as the last straw? I hope that makes sense!

Sorry if that was gone over in class, I was out sick.

Reply

rebecca g

4/10/2014 01:10:29 pm

I was bit confused on what actually led up to the revolution. What caused the conflict to break out? What were the biggest motivators?

Reply

Leave a Reply.

Author

Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.